Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
    Results 1 to 20 of 80
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Jun 2020
      Location
      Arkansas
      Posts
      57
      Country Flag: United States

      Torque Arm vs 4-Link

      I have a question regarding which suspension type is best for me and how I plan to use my car. I have searched this forum and every other resource I can find, read every article I can find but still have found no definitive answer to my question. IF there is, please post a link. I've think I've read everything David Pozzi has made regarding suspensions and have not ever seen it addressed from my perspective. Every discussion I read is coming at it from the "what suspension performs best" perspective, and there is not really even a consensus there either. First a little background.

      I have a 69 Camaro I am getting ready to start building. My buddy had the car for the last 15 years sitting in his barn and finally agreed to let me have it. He had already replaced all the rot so it's a good solid body to start with.
      I bought a Crate LSA and don't plan (at this time) to go much over stock. I'll make a few tweaks, Maybe 650hp at the motor, but pretty tame on a relative scale. I have a New Vintage Racing sub-frame fully dressed with all new parts, ridetech Adjustable shocks, Z06 big brakes, etc. I picked it up from a friend, $4000 was where I couldn't say no. (so there goes the Stick with one vendor front & rear argument) I may not use the big brakes if I decide on 17" wheels (for more sidewall) but right now that's what on it. The ridetech's have 500lb springs and I'll probably reduce the rate for a smoother ride too.

      I'm not exactly sure how to put this so this thread wont take a tangent, but here goes. My intent for the car is to build a very nice cruiser we can drive anywhere we want to go and still enjoy the ride. I don't want to be cussing it after 8 hours or have to argue with the wife whether or not we take the Camaro on the next trip. I realize everything is a compromise but I want all the performance I can get without sacrificing ride. I will never track the car and it'll never see the drag strip. I want it to be fast and capable and there will be times I'll push it, but I'm not trying to win any titles or even compete. It's just gonna be My Car. I'll get the best seats I can find, use all the sound dampening and Insulation I can get in it and probably soften whatever suspension I end up with.

      So now my question. Which is better suited to meet my needs, Torque Arm or 4 Link. Again, a Smooth, Quite and comfortable ride is my top priority, but I want all the performance I can get with that in mind. I think I know whose 4-link and whose torque arm I like best, so I'm not trying to pick a vendor, I'm just trying to figure out which Geometry/technology is better for me. Either would certainly meet my performance objectives. I do realize I just made a pretty good argument for Leaf springs, but there is not any wow factor in that. No Offense to the guys running mono leafs, that's just not what I'm shooting for.

      Let me try and stave off one of the typical expected comments. I realize a 69 Camaro will never be a 2020 Cadillac or a BMW. However, I do think we can improve on both ride and performance and If I wanted a Cadillac, I'd get one. Frankly it would be a whole lot cheaper, lol.

      I know this was a little long winded, but I would appreciate any input and I hope I didn't come across as anything other than sincere. Mike



    2. #2
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      12
      There are good reasons GM went with a torque arm. That being said it's more about finding the right spring and shock combination to reach your goals.

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Regardless of which you choose try to steer clear of metal on metal heim joints. They negatively impact ride quality imho. Also pay attention to sway bar rates. Generally soft spring stiff bar cars ride better. Cheap poly bushings wear quickly in my experience.

      I think all of these systems ride harsh because lowered cars generally require stiffer springs to limit suspension travel. None of them seem to incorporate any sort of progressive rate bump stops. They are simple designs to keep costs competitive.

      I’ll also add that my Art Morrison IRS equipped 69 Camaro is the nicest riding first gen F body by far in my experience. There is a reason why the OEMs have migrated from four links and torque arms to IRS....

      Don
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Jun 2020
      Location
      Arkansas
      Posts
      57
      Country Flag: United States
      Thanks for the input. I realize shock valving and spring rates are a big part of the equation for any suspension and I’m willing to spend the time to tune it. The only 4-links I’ve been around we’re straight line cars and they were harsh and loud. I’m sure the heims were a big part of that and I know most are going with a bushing type Jonny joint now which I’m sure helps the noise. Good info on the stiff sway bar. That’s a little counter intuitive to me. I would have guessed the opposite. I’m not sure what the rate is on the bar that came with my subframe but I was worried it would be too stiff.

      I’d love to go the IRS route but that’s a bit out of reach.

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Nov 2018
      Posts
      642
      Country Flag: United States
      Between the two options you selected, for the sort of performance you're looking for, I'd go with the torque arm. It packages better, it makes for a more stable, comfortable driver in case the 'ol lady needs to drive, and it does well on both acceleration and braking. And, lucky you, there are several companies that make complete torque arm kits for your car. 4-links are more of a drag strip rear and their main purpose is weight transfer in a straight line. I would suggest a 3-link, but everything I've seen on them requires mounting the top link where your back seats are.

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Posts
      49,371
      Country Flag: United States
      Our Torque Arm Kit is complete Bolt-On system.

      4 Links are usually going to take some fabrication


    7. #7
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      Michigan
      Posts
      322
      Country Flag: United States
      For a smooth quiet ride, rubber bushings are the way to go. They take the edge off initial impact harshness and reduce NVH. There's a reason why 99.9% of modern cars use rubber bushings - not poly or delrin, and especially not heim joints. The type of bushings will have more of an impact on ride comfort than whether it's a 4-link vs torque arm. As I've said before, as long as the kinematic properties are the same (instant center, roll center, etc), the number of links doesn't really matter. You want whatever packages nicely and has the minimum amount of unsprung weight.

      Off the top of my head, I think DSE is the only company that offers a rubber-bushed aftermarket rear suspension setup for first gen F-bodies. That'd be my pick if I were in your shoes.
      - Ryan

    8. #8
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Posts
      49,371
      Country Flag: United States
      For quietness, Rubber Bushings do a good job, but they also bind.

      For performance, Poly does a Great Job

      For Racing, Rod Ends, and Bearings are the way to go

    9. #9
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      Michigan
      Posts
      322
      Country Flag: United States
      The DSE control arms have the "swivel link" to address any binding concerns during twist.
      - Ryan

    10. #10
      Join Date
      Jun 2020
      Location
      Arkansas
      Posts
      57
      Country Flag: United States
      Thanks all for your input. I was hoping there would be a more of a consensus, something definitive to make my decision easier. I don’t plan to lower the car as much as most. As mentioned it takes some room for a suspension to work, and more importantly, I’m Just not a big fan of real low first gens. Don’t get me wrong, some of the cars look badass, it’s just not what I’m shooting for. I know that shows my age but I just prefer the look of closer to stock ride height. I also think the more sidewall the better for ride quality. So I guess I’m kind of an oddball, and I’m trying to get the performance without as much of the look.

      It’s all way more complicated than it first seems. There are a lot of variables and I don’t really understand how they all interact. It would be a lot safer to follow a recipe of tried and true combinations but I’m trying to figure out what I need to do to end up where I want to be without wasting a bunch of time and money.

      Don, do you have a build thread showing how you fit the 6L90 in the 69? I’d like to see how you packaged it.

    11. #11
      Join Date
      Nov 2018
      Posts
      642
      Country Flag: United States
      The nice thing about a torque arm, you can go test drive any 4th gen Camaro/Firebird to get an idea how you'd like it.

      You can also hit the net, asking XXX vs XXX suspension questions. Some of the sites are going to be low tech ricer sites, most are going to be "buy my product" sites, but there are some tech-rich sites out there. Quite a few of the hits will come from this very forum.

    12. #12
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,488
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      Don, do you have a build thread showing how you fit the 6L90 in the 69? I’d like to see how you packaged it.
      Sorry I don’t have a build thread but because I have an IRS not much applies. With an IRS the pinion doesn’t move which allowed me to push the transmission and driveshaft high into the tunnel to get good ground clearance for the transmission pan.

      Don
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    13. #13
      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Location
      East Tennessee
      Posts
      163
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      Every discussion I read is coming at it from the "what suspension performs best" perspective, and there is not really even a consensus there either.
      That's the million dollar question.

      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      The ridetech's have 500lb springs and I'll probably reduce the rate for a smoother ride too.
      500lb/in is actually kind of soft depending on your motion ratio. Since you have a factory subframe I assume you are using the factory motion ratio. I run 600lb/in front springs in my factory subframe. My camaro rides better than my bone stock 2019 Subaru WRX. 500lb/in could work but really it depends on the weight of the car on the front tires. Shocks (dampers) are also very important in regard to ride comfort.

      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      My intent for the car is to build a very nice cruiser we can drive anywhere we want to go and still enjoy the ride. I don't want to be cussing it after 8 hours or have to argue with the wife whether or not we take the Camaro on the next trip. I realize everything is a compromise but I want all the performance I can get without sacrificing ride.
      Seems relatively easy to achieve.

      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      I will never track the car and it'll never see the drag strip. I want it to be fast and capable and there will be times I'll push it, but I'm not trying to win any titles or even compete.
      The obvious solution is leaf springs.

      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      It's just gonna be My Car. I'll get the best seats I can find, use all the sound dampening and Insulation I can get in it and probably soften whatever suspension I end up with.
      This will definitely help with ride quality and comfort.

      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      So now my question. Which is better suited to meet my needs, Torque Arm or 4 Link. Again, a Smooth, Quite and comfortable ride is my top priority, but I want all the performance I can get with that in mind.
      Neither, leaf springs. You have no use for a 4 link, 3 link, or torque arm. If ride quality is paramount, the lightest system (least unsprung mass) is best so the suspension can react to bumps. 3 links (NOT torque arm) are usually the lightest of the link systems. 3 link vs leaf springs are comparable in regard to weight. Leaf springs are immensely less expensive.

      Quote Originally Posted by AEH View Post
      I do realize I just made a pretty good argument for Leaf springs, but there is not any wow factor in that. No Offense to the guys running mono leafs, that's just not what I'm shooting for.
      Very few people I know run mono leaf springs unless they have an unrestored car. My leaf springs are 5 ply. They work great. If "Wow factor" is a stipulation, you need to put that in your list of requirements in the beginning. If you are intolerant to leaf springs then I suggest a 3 link with a Watts Link centering device (not a panhard bar). A panhard bar will feel worse on on-ramps over bumps.
      Electrical/Mechanical Engineer
      1968 Camaro RS - Flat Black

    14. #14
      Join Date
      May 2018
      Location
      San Diego County
      Posts
      72
      Country Flag: United States
      Lot of good info on this thread, but also some not so good.

      Ride quality is very dependent upon a number of things, suspension design (links, leafs, T/A - meaning both Truck Arm and Torque Arms) "may" be a big part of it. And maybe not. Spring rates, damping rates, bushing choice (rod ends, rubber, delrin, etc) also play into things. Or not. Here's "our" run down, with full disclosure that we are a supplier to this hobby.

      Aside from supplier choice, and assuming that the quality of the design and manufacture is good enough, all Torque Arm systems on the market are essentially the same. They are a good option for a bolt on solution, or "nearly" bolt on, and anyone that owns one, or all of the suppliers of them, will tell you they are the best solution ever invented. They all have the same advantages, and the same downfalls. The shorter the actual "arm" in the system, the worse. Packaging a suitably long Torque Arm greatly interferes with the almost required "x" pipe in the exhaust. They all suffer from potential (which translates to "will have" if you push the car hard enough) brake hop issues.

      Aside, again, from supplier choice, with same assumptions, all Triangulated 4-Link systems are essentially the same. They package very well, but the overall geometry (purely from a performance and engineering standpoint) leaves very much to be desired. Anyone that owns them, and all of the suppliers that produce them will tell you they are the best solution ever invented.

      Truck arm setups, though not mentioned here, have essentially the same performance disadvantages as Torque Arms. Watch NASCAR. At Sear's Point (Sonoma Raceway) and see how many times the commentators speak of wheel hop in the really hot braking zones. Maybe not an issue for a purely street driven car, but it's a fact. And they break axles ALL the time as a result. Anyone that owns them, and all of the suppliers (which are few), well, you get it.

      "Four link" systems, with the addition of a Panhard Bar or Watt's link, aren't "4 links." They are 5 links. And this means that they are mechanically over-constrained. Which is why they handle like crap, they fundamentally bind in roll. Ask any capable Mechanical Engineer. They will ONLY work if you use rubber bushings, which most do, which masks the binding aspect. Anyone that owns one........

      Three Link systems, with the addition of either a Panhard Bar, or a Watt's Link to manage the lateral loads, do not suffer from ANY of the above disadvantages with all of the other stick axle setups, if designed and engineered appropriately. A 3-Link is NOT the same as a Torque Arm, the mechanics are completely different. The downside is typically packaging. In our "Next Generation" 3-Link systems, we strove to minimize this aspect, while preserving (and in many aspects, "improving") the performance attributes of our legacy systems. The ones who scored the inaugural optima Ultimate Street Car honors for "Bad Penny," class wins at the One Lap of America, Targa Newfoundland, and many other events that our customers compete in. 3000+ mile long bucket list road trips? Check. Wow factor? Check. So, yeah, we as a supplier will tell you they are the best invention solution currently available. Ask any question, and we will tell you WHY we did what we did. We have a re-introduction thread on the suspension page of this forum, check it out.

      Most of all, have fun, whatever path you choose will be a good one. Enjoy the hobby, and be well.
      Mark Magers

      Founder and Principal, Lateral Dynamics LLC
      [email protected]
      lateral-dynamics.com

      One tenth of a second on the race track is often the difference between first place, and fourth.

    15. #15
      Join Date
      Apr 2009
      Location
      Michigan
      Posts
      322
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      "Four link" systems, with the addition of a Panhard Bar or Watt's link, aren't "4 links." They are 5 links. And this means that they are mechanically over-constrained. Which is why they handle like crap, they fundamentally bind in roll. Ask any capable Mechanical Engineer. They will ONLY work if you use rubber bushings, which most do, which masks the binding aspect. Anyone that owns one........
      I respectfully disagree with a couple of things mentioned here, but the biggest one is the knock on parallel 4-links. I know of several cars running them that don't handle like crap. You be the judge regarding whether the builders/owners are capable mechanical engineers or not.

      https://www.hotrod.com/articles/mark...-dont-have-to/

      Last edited by stab6902; 10-14-2020 at 10:28 AM. Reason: added link since pic didn't work
      - Ryan

    16. #16
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      corona,ca.
      Posts
      1,078
      Country Flag: United States
      Well,dse does use moog k5144 rubber(mexico) bushings,thats why there system doesnt bind,and the swivel link which and no offense to them or anyone using there parts it's more of marketing idea,a shaft with a bronze bushing,pretty heavy too.
      Just my opinion since I looked at there patent drawings.

      And let's be honest here now tucker,stielow were/are GM engineers ,that have WAY more track time,


      FEATURED, MUSCLE CARS, NEWS

      1969 CAMARO LT5 CURRENTLY IN THE WORKS BY MARK STIELOWIt Will Incorporate A C7 Corvette ZR1 Crate Motor That Could Have Upwards Of 900 Horsepower

      by Manoli KatakisApril 24, 2020, 6:46 pm

      General Motors has a battalion of performance drivers that have achieved amazing lap times on tracks like Virginia International Raceway and the mighty Nürburgring. One of them of particular note can be only described as a Yoda equivalent of the group. The Jedi Master that oversees the rest of the group. This person is Mark Stielow, and he has also made a name for himself outside of GM’s Milford Proving Grounds. He’s also the godfather of the pro touring movement – particularly when it comes to the Chevrolet Camaro.

      So.....they have more racing experience then the competition they had run against...lots more.
      Last edited by chevelletiger; 10-14-2020 at 07:49 PM. Reason: Paste
      72 chevelle.

    17. #17
      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Location
      East Tennessee
      Posts
      163
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      Lot of good info on this thread, but also some not so good.
      "Four link" systems, with the addition of a Panhard Bar or Watt's link, aren't "4 links." They are 5 links.
      Using that logic, your "3 link" is actually a "4 link."

      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      And this means that they are mechanically over-constrained. Which is why they handle like crap, they fundamentally bind in roll. Ask any capable Mechanical Engineer. They will ONLY work if you use rubber bushings, which most do, which masks the binding aspect. Anyone that owns one........
      This is specific ONLY to triangulated or trapezoidal 4 link systems which don't use separate centering devices.

      Parallel 4 link systems require separate centering devices and don't bind as easily. they are comparable to 3 links in terms of available travel. Both are very capable systems.

      All solid axle systems bind in roll, it is just a matter of how much travel is available before binding occurs.

      Quote Originally Posted by stab6902 View Post
      I respectfully disagree with a couple of things mentioned here, but the biggest one is the knock on parallel 4-links. I know of several cars running them that don't handle like crap. You be the judge regarding whether the builders/owners are capable mechanical engineers or not.
      Exactly. Mark and Kyle are very well versed in vehicle dynamics and are fantastic drivers.
      Electrical/Mechanical Engineer
      1968 Camaro RS - Flat Black

    18. #18
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      12
      Quote Originally Posted by Mark@lateral-dynamics View Post
      Lot of good info on this thread, but also some not so good.

      Truck arm setups, though not mentioned here, have essentially the same performance disadvantages as Torque Arms. Watch NASCAR. At Sear's Point (Sonoma Raceway) and see how many times the commentators speak of wheel hop in the really hot braking zones. Maybe not an issue for a purely street driven car, but it's a fact. And they break axles ALL the time as a result. Anyone that owns them, and all of the suppliers (which are few), well, you get it.
      Most of all, have fun, whatever path you choose will be a good one. Enjoy the hobby, and be well.
      I guess it depends on how the truck arm is designed. NASCAR requires truck arms of 38lbs. each. I built composite arms of 12.5lbs. each. Due to their ability to flex I have yet to see brake hop at a track day and I would challenge anyone to build a lighter rear with a live axle.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=San17XlQCGM

    19. #19
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Jacksonville, Fl
      Posts
      12
      Quote Originally Posted by Sleeper68 View Post
      All solid axle systems bind in roll, it is just a matter of how much travel is available before binding occurs.
      Unless the link itself flexes.....

    20. #20
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Beach Park IL
      Posts
      2,838
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Sleeper68 View Post
      Using that logic, your "3 link" is actually a "4 link."
      .
      Actually, with a watts, it's a 5 link. :head assplodes:

      I will take a perfect version of any of the suspensions over a compromised version of any of the others. I have personally owned vehicles with leaf springs, truck arms, triangulated 4 links - with the upper bars in both directions, and 3 links with PHBs.

      The best rear suspension was the one that packaged the best in that vehicle and fit my needs for budget and time commitment to install.

      If I were the OP, the only rear suspension I would be considering would be the DSE QuadaLink.
      Donny

      Support your local hot rod shop!

    Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com